State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tata Motors. vs Sh. Ajay Kaushish. & Ors. on 11 March, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1)
First Appeal No.377/2014
Date of Presentation: 29.10.2014
Date of Decision: 11.03.2015
........................................................................
Tata Motors, Bombay House, 24,
Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001,
Through its Head Car Product Group.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
(1) Ajay Kaushish, son of Shri P.C. Kaushish,
Resident of Kaushish Niwas,
Below Anand Bhawan, Comely Bank,
Shimla, H.P.
(2) J.P. Motors, Barog Bye-pass,
Solan, H.P.,
Through its General Manager.
(3) State Bank of India, Main Branch,
The Mall, Shimla, H.P.,
Through its Manager.
.......... Respondents.
For the Appellant: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Dhiraj Kanwar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: None.
For Respondent No.3: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
..............................................................................
AND
First Appeal No.388/2014
(2)
Date of Presentation: 10.11.2014
Date of Decision: 11.03.2015
........................................................................
State Bank of India, Main Branch,
The Mall, Shimla, H.P.,
Through its Manager.
.......... Appellant.
Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014)
AND
State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014)
________________________________________________________________
Versus
(1) Ajay Kaushish, son of Shri P.C. Kaushish,
Resident of Kaushish Niwas,
Below Anand Bhawan, Comely Bank,
Shimla, H.P.
(2) Tata Motors Limited, Bombay House, 24,
Homi Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001,
Through its Head Car Product Group.
(3) J.P. Motors, Barog Bye-pass,
Solan, H.P.,
Through its General Manager.
.......... Respondents.
..............................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1: Mr. Dhiraj Kanwar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3: None.
..............................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals filed by two different 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Page 2 of 13
Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ opposite parties, in a Consumer Complaint No.364 of 2011, decided by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, vide order dated 12.09.2014. One Appeal has been filed by Tata Motors, who was impleaded as opposite party No.1 and the other by State Bank of India, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3.
2. Respondent No.1, Ajay Kaushish, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the present appellants, as also J.P. Motors, impleaded as respondent in these two appeals, pleading the following facts. Respondent/complainant wanted to book a Nano Car, by raising loan from State Bank of India, hereinafter called opposite party No.3. He went to the Branch Office of opposite party No.3, at Shimla, sometime in the month of July, 2009 and approached the concerned official to finance and book a Tata Nano Car. He gave a Page 3 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ cheque of `3,550/- to the concerned official of opposite party No.3, on being told that the said amount was to be paid by him as booking charges. Another sum of `2,999/- was charged from him in July, 2009, when he went to seek financing of the vehicle, on getting a letter of allotment from Tata Motors, opposite party No.1. Car was ultimately delivered to respondent/ complainant on 08.07.2010, when he paid a sum of `37,064/-, on account of remaining price, after adjustment of payments already made through opposite party No.3.
3. A sale invoice in the sum of `1,56,464/-, copy Annexure C-9 was issued on 08.07.2010 by J.P. Motors, respondent No.2 in F.A. No.377/2014, hereinafter called opposite party No.2. Respondent/complainant received a communication from Tata Motors, opposite party No.1, that the price of car was `1,53,677/- at the station, where the delivery was given to him and Page 4 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ then he came to know that the Dealer, i.e. opposite party No.2 had overcharged him by an amount of `2,787/-. Also, it was at that point of time that he came to know that an amount of `3,550/- paid to opposite party No.3, on account of booking amount in April, 2009, had not been adjusted against the price and that an amount of `2,999/-, charged by opposite party No.3 in July, 2009, had too not been adjusted, in his loan account. On these allegations, respondent/ complainant prayed for issuance of direction to opposite party No.1 to adjust the amount of `3,550/-, by way of booking amount in addition to an amount of `1,20,000/-; direction to opposite party No.2, i.e. the Dealer, to refund the amount of `2,787/-, overcharged and direction to opposite party No.3 to account for the amount of `3,550/-, charged on account of booking amount in April, 2009 and also to account for the amount Page 5 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ of `2,999/- charged in July, 2009, besides seeking compensation and litigation expenses.
4. Complaint was contested by both the appellants, as also opposite party No.2. Three separate replies were filed by the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1, i.e. Tata Motors, appellant in F.A. No.377/2014 denied having received an amount of `3,550/-, as booking amount. Opposite party No.3, i.e. State Bank of India, appellant in F.A. No.388/2014 admitted that an amount of `3,550/- was charged, on account of booking of the vehicle and processing charges and `2,999/- were charged, on account of non-cancellation of booking, within thirty days, in accordance with the terms & conditions.
5. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint. Tata Motors has been directed to pay a sum of `3,550/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. State Bank of India has also been Page 6 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ directed to pay `3,550/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum alongwith Tata Motors (liability of both being joint and several) and in addition, State Bank of India has been directed to pay a sum of `2,999/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Both Tata Motors and State Bank of India, as also opposite party No.2, have further been ordered to pay `25,000/-, as damages for mental harassment and litigation expenses. In addition, opposite party No.2, has been directed to refund a sum of `2,787/-, overcharged, on account of price of the car, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
6. Opposite party No.2 has not preferred any appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Learned counsel representing Tata Motors, submits that an amount of `3,550/- had never been remitted to it, nor could have the car Page 7 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ been booked for a paltry sum of `3,550/- and that as a matter of fact, they booked the car in the name of respondent/complainant, only on receipt of an amount of `1,20,000/-, from opposite party No.3, i.e. State Bank of India. It is not the case of opposite party No.3 that the amount of `3,550/- was remitted to Tata Motors. However, in the reply, opposite party No.3 has very categorically stated that an amount of `3,550/- was charged from the respondent/complainant, towards booking amount and processing charges of loan.
9. Now, denial by Tata Motors that the money was paid to it, towards booking amount and absence of plea by opposite party No.3 that the amount was remitted to Tata Motors, i.e. opposite party No.1, should be enough to jump to the conclusion that the aforesaid amount of `3,550/-, charged from respondent/complainant was never remitted to Tata Motors. Therefore, the learned District Forum was not right in Page 8 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ holding Tata Motors liable for the refund of amount of `3,550/- and awarding damages against it. Consequently, the appeal filed by opposite party No.1, i.e. Tata Motors is accepted and the order of learned District Forum, as against the said opposite party, is set aside.
10. As regards the appeal filed by opposite party No.3, i.e. State Bank of India, learned counsel representing the said opposite party submits that an amount of `3,550/- was charged, not on account of booking amount, but by way of upfront fees, in terms of circular dated 2nd April, 2009, a copy of which has been made available to this Commission today. Of course, the circular, copy of which has been placed on record today, does speak of charging of upfront fees, but submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted, in view of specific plea raised in the reply that the amount of `3,550/- was charged, on account of booking Page 9 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ money and loan processing charges. The booking amount could not have been retained by opposite party No.3, because this was required to be remitted to the supplier of the car.
11. As regards processing charges, the sanction letter of loan, Annexure CW1/A specifically states that such charges had been waived, as a special case. Reference may be made to page-3 of Annexure CW1/A. So, in our considered view, no fault can be found with the order of learned District Forum, as regards the direction to opposite party No.3 to refund an amount of `3,550/-.
12. So far as charging of an amount of `2,999/- is concerned, it is not the case of the respondent/complainant that the aforesaid amount of money was charged, by way of booking amount, or by way of processing charges. A new case is sought to be made out in the course of hearing of this appeal by the Page 10 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ respondent/complainant, when his counsel submits that this amount was required to be adjusted in the loan account. Opposite party No.3 in its reply very categorically stated that the amount of `2,999/- had been charged, on account of non-cancellation of booking, within thirty days. In the reply, the relevant portion of circular dated 04.09.2009, copy of which has been made available today, has been reproduced. As per this circular, a sum of `2,999/- is chargeable by the Bank in case the booking is not cancelled, within thirty days, which admittedly in this case had not been cancelled. Therefore, the respondent/ complainant is not entitled to the refund of an amount of `2,999/-.
13. As a result of the above discussion, we partly accept the appeal filed by State Bank of India (opposite party No.3), and modify the impugned order to the extent that it will not be Page 11 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ liable to refund the amount of `2,999/-, but as regards the direction given by the learned District Forum for the refund of an amount of `3,550/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, we affirm the order. As regard the amount of damages, looking to the amount of money, which has been directed to be refunded by the opposite party No.3 (State Bank of India) to the respondent/complainant, we direct that out of the amount of damages of `25,000/-, awarded by learned District Forum, State Bank of India, shall be liable to pay only a sum of `5,000/- and the rest of the amount of `20,000/-, can be claimed by the respondent/complainant, from opposite party No.2. Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
14. This order be placed on the record of F.A. No.377/2014, titled Tata Motors versus Ajay Kaushish & Ors., and its authenticated copy on Page 12 of 13 Tata Motors Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.377/2014) AND State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kaushish & Ors. (F.A. No.388/2014) ________________________________________________________________ the record of F.A. No.388/2014, titled State Bank of India versus Ajay Kaushish & Ors.
15. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member March 11, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 13 of 13